Quick Hitts

Chomsky has penned yet another analysis of the world situation, and as always, he betrays a deep ignorance of just about everything. Before continuing, please read it here.

Back so soon? Let’s review.

He’s upset that India isn’t getting the same flack as Iran over their nuclear program. Somehow, in all his study of geopolitics, he managed to miss the fact that Iran has consistently supported terrorism (for quite a while it was a line item in their national budget), while India hasn’t.

Bet you didn’t know that Israel has nukes to keep the US in line. But wait, did he really say that?

“US military analysts have recognized that, as Army Lt. Col. Warner Farr wrote in 1999, one “purpose of Israeli nuclear weapons, not often stated, but obvious, is their ‘use’ on the United States,” presumably to ensure consistent U.S. support for Israeli policies — or else.”

A quick reading of the article might leave us with the impression that this he stated it as a fact, but he never really does. It’s carefully weasel worded so that if anyone calls him on it he can squirm out from under it. It’s the trademark Chomsky technique of making a claim without really making it.

“Shortly after the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, which left some 15-20,000 killed in an unprovoked effort to secure Israel’s control of the occupied territories…”

The PLO was using southern Lebanon as to build terrorist camps and launch attacks against Israel. (Sound familiar?) There was nothing unprovoked about the attack. We can only conclude that Chomsky is unaware of the facts (unlikely), is being intentionally dishonest (more likely) or is so driven by ideology it has rendered him, for all practical purposes, anencephalic (biologically implausible).

“Joining the unpeople is the large majority of Americans, according to polls. The American unpeople not only endorse Iran’s right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes but also support the “Arab position” calling for a nuclear-weapons-free-zone in the entire region, a step that would sharply reduce major threats, but is also off the agenda of the powerful; unmentionable in electoral campaigns, for example.”

That is just stunning in it’s stupidity. Does anyone, besides Noam, believe that Iran is developing nukes for power? And asking everyone in the area to give up nukes (complete list: Israel) is as likely as Islam giving up terrorism.

“The government of Iran merits severe condemnation on many counts, but the Iranian threat remains a desperate construction of those who arrogate to themselves the right to rule the world, and consider any impediment to their just rule to be criminal aggression. That is the primary threat that should concern us, as it concerns saner minds in the West, and the unpeople of the rest of the world.”

Fact: Iran is developing nukes.

Fact: Iran’s President (Ima-nut-job) has repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map, while displaying his smarmy, condescending smile.

Fact: There are still a few people alive today with numbers tattooed on their arms. Israel takes such threats very seriously, as they should.

Yes, we should be concerned with the misuse of American power. Under this administration it has been staggering. But that has little to do with the points he’s making: Israel is the bad guy, the US sucks and is evil (his favorite theme) and Iran only wants nukes for peaceful purposes like making candy and building shelters for puppies.

This is not garden variety stupidity. This is a very special kind of stupidity, one that can only be achieved by cultivating it for decades while being shielded from the real world by the ivory tower of academia. It needs to be fed by the left praising every one of his drooling proclamations as the holy saliva of the gods. It requires excellent writing skills to fool some of the lefties all of the time.

It takes a lot of effort to be this stupid, and Chomsky has done all the required work.

More Info: Check out this YouTube Video that exposes his ignorance and dishonesty.

5 Comment(s)

“That is just stunning in it’s stupidity. Does anyone, besides Noam, believe that Iran is developing nukes for power?”

I do. I would quote the US National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007 like Noam. And I would additionally refute what you seem to support, that Iran’s president has any power. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has no power: the Iranian political system is based around the ayatollahs, primary the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei. Khamenei dislikes nuclear weapons: many analysts believe that his fatwa against them was not for Israel’s benefit (no one in Israel was listening to him) but rather to caution the Islamic establishment against nuclear confrontation.

I believe that Iran is developing nuclear technology for two reasons: nuclear power and as a bargaining chip; ridding themselves of nukes (with the capacity to get them again in short time) for diplomatic and material benefits.

Firstly, nuclear power does work. France, I think, has proven that.

Secondly, Khamenei is nothing if not pragmatic. He does not want nuclear war: but he sees the strong position nuclear technology has given to North Korea and India. Developing the technology gives him a bargaining chip to get what he wants out of Russia, or playing nice with the US and receiving aid.

This framework explains Iran’s actual behavior (and not Ahmadinejad’s bombastic rhetoric). By being on the cusp of having nukes Iran has a great bargaining position without ever having to take a militaristic stance (and letting Ahmadinejad scare the west with no cost to themseves: Israel knows who’s really in charge). By not having actually developed nukes yet and not having sold off the tech, they prevent themselves from their only risk: Israeli airstrike.

It seems to me that Khamenei is just doing what he has tended to do since the ’90’s: solidify his power and help Iran by playing itself off the major powers.

Why are so many people worried about Iran? it will be quite a while before they can even hope to have something useful. Besides, controlling the amount of material (an international requirement and easily enforced) that goes in would ensure they never have enough to be a threat.

Pakistan already has nukes! ( http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/ ) And there are known terrorists there, not just suspected. Why aren’t you worried about them? The argument that they would not waste one on us because India would respond in kind is wearing thin – because that supposes that the government can keep them out of rebel hands.

Let us read the full article! Then state your reasons why you have climbed so high on the latter.

Then cross reference your position! What I like about the anti Noam, guys when your read their rants their is nothing to learn – no data or way to validate their position. You get BS and will I don’t like Noam but I will use his name to get a web page!

You take the same positions as everyone who wishes to criticise Chomsky: That he hates America (even though he constantly extols it as probably the free-est counrt in the world)that he is anti-Isreali and pro-Arab just because he does not only list the attrocities of Islamic terrorism and points out that the reasons the west gives for wanting to attack or invade a country can be applied to many other countries also in order to emphasise the disimilation employed by western governments, and that he is ideologicaly driven (a fault which you yourself obviously do ‘not’ display) which is preposterous: all chomsky does is present evidence (mountains of the stuff) and sometimes possible interpretations of that evidence. Where is your evidence, because your reactionary critism displays only biased analysis.

Read some of Chomsky’s interviews, people constantly attempt to debunk him as partisan and they constantly fail; he certainly deals with everyone of your ill thought out criticisms.

Leigh, if you’re going to speak about “evidence,” how do you feel about the fact that Chomsky typically cites *himself* in his writings and often doesn’t even bother with citations beyond “I’ve already explained this elsewhere”? Or how about who, when he does provide real citations, you can often follow a trail through his citations and their citations right back to Chomsky, so he’s still effectively citing himself? For such a brilliant, invariably accurate scholar, he sure doesn’t do a great job of proving his own statements, regardless of these “mountains of evidence” he offers. And I say that as a leftist who agrees with him more often than not.

For what it’s worth, most of the harshest Chomsky critics I know are fellow leftist academics, and it’s never for any of the reasons you cited. You’re either paranoid, delusional, or under the impression that you have to blindly support someone with whom you usually agree. Believe it or not, it’s okay to think independently and critique someone’s style.

Also, I didn’t see you debunk anything Hitt said. What I saw you doing was pulling a Chomsky — saying that everyone else has already done the research and that it agrees with you, and then refusing to provide any evidence yourself. The crackpot doesn’t fall far from the tree.